Another Thought on "Rigor"

Jack - you are on target here. Business doctoral programs (except for U.S. DL schools) almost always require the GMAT (or GRE). I've seen top schools that only take students with 650+ scores. Even lesser schools - such as some of the southern state schools - are looking for at least a 550.

The GMAT is scored in such a way that the average score is around 500 with a standard deviation, I believe, of about 100. The GMAT folks say that 2/3 of those taking the GMAT score between 400 and 600 - which would fit a normal distribution with mean 500 and standard deviation of 100. With a cut off score of 600, schools would be limiting their admission pools to only the top 16% or so of students taking the GMAT.

The thing that gets me is that the for-profits don't require the GMAT or GRE at all. NSU requires the GMAT, but typically is only looking for a 500 and may take folks with a high 400.

I don't believe the GMAT is a perfect test - but as one of my peer points out, at a gross level it makes sense to use it. GMAT scores of 300 (two standard deviations below the mean) would seem to point to a student that lacks the basic intellectual ability to do doctoral work.

As for selectivity - most business doctoral programs are small - 20 or 30 students is typical at many schools. With a 4-5 year plan of study, many schools admit only a small number of students each year. Telling folks they need a 600 GMAT is one way to hold back the crowd.

My point isn't that DL schools are bad for providing access to non-traditional students. Where DL schools fail, in my mind, is in not being selective. A bachelor's degree may be a goal for most any student that comes along. But graduate education needs a degree of selectivity - or else the concept of being a "master" or holding a "doctorate" means nothing.

One more point - as for doctoral programs in Business, the last list I saw from the AACSB folks showed about 100 such programs in the U.S. The DL ranks may be 7 schools now, but are growing as more schools add such programs.

Regards - Andy

 

I am of the same opinion as Rich Douglas regarding the assessment methods of determining "rigor", or whatever else it is we want to call it. We can go on all day about inputs. Every bit of it would be conjecture and circumstance. Talking about admission testing is not unreasonable. But I would counter that just as reasonable an input for entry requirements would be GPA and professional accreditation. If a DL doctoral program achieves accreditation, such as CACREP or APA, and requires 3.0 graduate GPA for entry into a doctoral program, this serves the same value in arguing a point as does talking about using tests as filters.

However, the bottom line is that the only thing that really matters is the outcomes. When one can offer data with clearly defined and agreed upon metrics for assessment of the outcomes, then there will be a basis for position on comparing apples to apples. While Andy's arguments are well considered and presented and also are reasonably founded, the same can be said of the counter position based on other equally reasonable factors such as GPA entry requirements and professional accreditation.

It all is interesting debate but is no closer to really answering the question(s) without agreed upon terms, definitions, and data. If available, none of which has been presented.

 

Does this get to the heart of the rigor argument? Do we believe that too many students are allowed into the DL programs so as to make the completion of the program less prestigious? I answer yes to both questions. I would like to see at least some DL institutions start being more selective both with students AND with faculty. I think this would be a good start on improving the image of DL in general.

Since I've returned to school, I've maintained a 4.0 GPA, scored very respectable on the GRE (650V, 800Q) and most of the time (especially the in the theory/math heavy courses) I am in the top 1 or 2 in my classes. While some might think this to be good for my ego, I hate this situation. I want to go to graduate school where many students (if not most) are smarter or better prepared academically to push me to be even better. Currently, none of the popular DL universities seem to have that sort of reputation. There is something to be said about the competition aspect to education. Being in a class where a large portion of the students are dullards can have a chilling affect on academic achievement by the class as a whole.

 

I think we are already beyond the point at which having a doctorate still carried much prestige. In my field, what's important for one's reputation is one's publication record and (to some extent) one's visibility as a conference organizer or as an officer in professional organizations (e.g. ACS, ASM).

 

JoAnn, I would be interested in hearing of your experiences and or research that you use to form your positions.

Keep in mind that a highly successful business person in their field, that is looking for a doctoral program, would not likely be found in any traditional BM school. Believe me, there are many brilliant, mid career professionals, of the intellectual caliber you are seeking, enrolled in DL doctoral programs simply because of flexibility, not because they need to ar wish to seek less rigor or easier paths.

You are selling the process, and yourself, short of just the opportunity you seek if you conclude, out of hand, that only programs with highly selective filters can offer what you seek.

 

You will find that in any legitimate graduate program.

I found the leap from undergrad to graduate school much like going from single-A ball to the Major League.

 

I am an adjunct in the DL graduate program of a state school that has an essentially open admissions policy.

What has struck me over the years about the students is the diversity in their levels of competence.

The best students (approximately the top 10%) would be a match for any of those at a highly selective school such as Stanford.

The worst students (bottom 10%) are astonishingly bad -- essentially illiterate and apparently incapable of putting together a rational analysis of any situation or concept. (These students often complain about the grades that I give them -- and say that they have routinely been getting "A"s or "B"s!)

Most of the students obviously fall somewhere in between.

But it's those very capable and creative students that make it worthwhile for me.

 

Recently, I took a class which was a graduate level course in Computer Science at FSU. I found the majority of the students in the class to be unprepared and unmotivated. One difference between this class and other FSU classes was that it was a night class attended exclusively by part-time, working students. Most of these students, while involved with IT in some manner or another, didn't even have an BSCS! A good portion of the class was unstructured and our class project was developed organically over the period of the class. These circumstances required each student to go beyond just being a student and to demonstrate leadership and determination. If it weren't for about three of us (myself included) the class would have just given up on the project. Instead of taking the opportunity to shape our direction on the project, the majority of the students essentially gave up!

Bruce, I hope what you say is in general the case; however, I tend to expect that its not true, at least with regards to most of the visible or popular DL institutions. The vast majority of my fellow DL classmates are looking for a highly structured, paint-by-numbers version of education so they can fit it into their busy lives. I suspect that the same types of students are going to be predominant in DL or other part-time programs. On the other hand, I'm looking for an opportunity to study under professors/system that encourages -- nay requires students to push the boundaries of the cirriculum.

 

JoAnnP38 wrote:

Sorry about your poor experience at FSU. If your GREs are that high, and if you are so above your classmates then it sounds like FSU or any regular BM or DL school will not fit your needs. You might as well apply to a top notch school or program completely. I would do it.


And btw, many of the people in this forum are taking DL classes at overseas schools, DL schools or DL programs from bm institutions. And I seriously doubt that they are a bunch of dullards or unable to compete with you at the same level. And let me say that quite a few have similar scores in their GREs or GMATS, but because of their lifestyles (working overseas, army) have little choice but to pursue their endeavors through DL. I'm sure that you'll find that many here are pretty smart and responsible.

Regardless of the admissions policy debate, my own experience at a BM state school and a DL school has been somewhat similar to what Oxpecker said. Some students you wonder where the hell they came from (and these usually quit the program very soon) but some are just outstanding. So far my experience has been very good, the curriculum has been very demanding, and the faculty have been superb. Not all DL schools are that good or have enjoyed a very good reputation in the DL community (NCU, UoP), but I would recommend many of the others. Of course, the are better schools, and if you can do it, attend a prestigious school. They have been there longer and their name can open many more doors.

-S

 

There are many ways to slice and dice this issue but I think that it comes down to the overall quality of the school. This goes back to Andy's concept on rigor. Lack of rigor is to me when slipshod work in courses or thesis is passed and students are promoted and awarded higher grades than they should have earned. Good quality schools not only provide good teaching but only pass and promote students who are actually making the grade. I believe to some extent that grade inflation is a key indicator of lack of rigor. Getting back to the basics of an A is an A, a B a B, etc., is what is important. Solid student evaluation and solid teaching is what makes for a good quality school and program. The reputation of the school rests on it.

I am not apt to make a judgement that B&M is better than DL because this too depends on the quality of the program and the student. For example, while working in an IT job fulltime it would be very difficult for someone to pursue let's say a physics doctoral degree in a DL mode because the student does not have access to the necessary laboratories needed to fully pursue studies of this type. There are exceptions of course and one of them is Michigan State University that offers online doctoral physics courses through its Virtual University program. http://online-contined.msu.edu/SearchResults.asp

This raises another view that many B&M schools have models that mirror many of the schools we consider DL. For example, I know of one B&M school (and there are others so no need to mention them) who offer courses in its Ed.D. program at a satellite branch over 200 miles away from the main campus. Graduates are typically working full time in their jobs while taking coursework. They will register for their dissertation work on campus and are required to complete it on campus. In many cases these students will get a low rent apartment or other cheap accomodation so they have a place to stay while on campus but actually spend most of their time at work away from campus (again a hundred or more miles away) and only visit the campus when necessary under the direction of their advisor. I for one see very little difference in this approach and the NSU model in their SCIS program where I had to go to campus every 3 months for my Ph.D. The only difference was that I had more flexibility in that my "seat time" was on the main campus every three months whereas the "seat time" of the aforementioned school was on the weekends at the satellite campus.

Thus, frankly speaking, students that are not up to snuff need to be weeded out in the admissions process and if they make it through this process (and many will) either need to step up to the plate and do quality work or be dismissed when the quality of the work continues to be subpar. Especially at the doctoral level good programs should not allow students to coast through.

A final story: In one DL program I had one masters student who couldn't put together a solid logical argument to defend his topics. Everything presented was superficial and for the most part constructed poorly. As an instructor I took the steps of providing much detailed input to the student on how to improve research and presentation of ideas. I even went to the point of submitting some of the work I received from the student, removing any connection to the student, to some of my peers for comment and received similar feedback from them on the quality of the work and suggestions for improvement. The student received a D for the course but I could tell he didn't receive the constructive criticism I provided well. I had one scathing review from the student course reviews that for one part I can remember stated that I was an "entrenched traditionalist instructor who didn't care about students...." Based on the comments I think I could make a fairly solid guess of who provided the input. I also later found out that the student dropped out of the program after my class.

This student raised the question in my mind of wether or not he was qualified to get into the program. He had successfully completed 3 or 4 courses before jumping into my course. On the other hand I also pondered lenient admissions whereby students are given the opportunity to pursue graduate studies and then must either "sink or swim." For those that swim my accolades go to them. For those that sink they need to determine if the studies are really right for them and to persevere when they find studies that support their goals. If the studies undertaken are truly above the potential of the student then it is best they do not graduate. The faculty must therefore insure that quality and standards are met and provide consistent and fair grading based on them.

John

 

Drwestsch wrote:

Good post. I fully agree with all of your points. Keep it coming!

-S

 

John's description of his weak student is similar to how I would describe some of the weaker students in my own classes.

A key question in my mind, however, is whether a filtering mechanism based on selective admissions would necessarily filter out the right applicants. Perhaps some kind of probationary admissions system might be best -- wherein students would take a broad-based introductory/review course, and their acceptance into the rest of the program would be contingent upon their performance in that course.

 

Oxpecker wrote:

Coming from an European background, I like that. It seems fair enough. I think Harvard's Extension school(which is usually regarded as having an open admissions policy) screens students based on their performance in their two introductory classes as well.

-S

 

Okay, I'm sure I came across as modesty challenged and like Bruce's earlier comment about the big leagues I hope what you are saying is true. However, I think the problem I've experience is two-pronged and is not entirely due to the population of students. Part of the problem is that the cirriculum seems to be fashioned with consideration to the average expected goals of a typical class. If the admissions policy is "open" then I worry that these goals would be biased toward the average capabilities of the students in the program. With an open admissions policy, I would expect a significant number of students to fail.

I do think that I would be happier in a top school; however, for various reasons that's not going to happen. I will be sending out my application to Columbia for grad school, but I'm not sure I would consider them a "top school", but they are the best school that offers a Computer Science, thesis-based masters degree via DL.

In the end, my protestations center around the "openess" of many of the more popular DL institutions. I fear this leads to a dumbing down of the cirriculum because I don't hear about all the students that flunk out! I'm afraid that the institutions' business models depends on keeping students in the program, not flunking them out.

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that every class will be full of motivated go-getters, but it was my experience that the slackers got weeded out by the demands of the course. One professor I had at UMass would scold substandard work by saying "This is graduate school, people". One class I had (Statistics), three people left at the break of the first class & never came back.

 

As a trainer, I just don't understand this. As I've posted before, it is outcomes, not inputs, that are the issue. If one believes that DL doctoral programs are turning out substandard graduates, it must be because they allow lesser-accomplished candidates to graduate; the schools must have lower standards. If so, changing admissions won't help: highly talented candidates won't excel if they're not held to a high standard (and measured against it).

Higher GRE/GMAT score requirements won't address this issue, if it even exists. It is simple (and dead wrong) to point to two schools, see a difference in the average test scores of its entering candidates, and infer a difference in quality in the schools.

Again, measure the outcomes, not the inputs. And I'd stack a group of Union (or Nova, or Capella, or Fielding, or...) graduates against a set of grads from traditional programs any day. Older, wiser, more accomplished, that's what they are. Sure, traditional programs crank out most (almost all?) of the people who will some day become leaders of their fields. Fine. But don't discount the accomplishments and capabilities of DL grads--accomplishments that go far, far beyond the dissertations they create. Some kid graduating with his/her Ph.D. may someday go on to do greater things than I'll ever do. But not today.

 

That's just it, looking at this issue strictly from the viewpoint of the trainer does a disservice to the students. Rich, as much as I respect your opinion and given that most often I am in too much awe as to engage you in discussion, I think handling this issue on the backend (i.e. results oriented) deprives better students of the professor's time for more advanced topics. It seems to me that it is common for the Professor to spend too much time with the poorer students. In cohort systems, poorer students put undue stress on the better students. As a paying, adult student I want institutions to weed out bad students and bad faculty before I ever have to share a class with them. Higher admission standards, while certainly not perfect, would go a long ways towards this objective. Hiring more fulltime faculty IMO, would also provide higher quality instruction. In this sense I am in full agreement with Andy. I'm not advocating that all DL institutions approach admissions this way, but I would certainly welcome at least one!

 

You may be right about this (or maybe not) but the question that's been raised is related to the rigor of the programs and the quality of the eventual dissertations. "Older, wiser, more accomplished..." is not the issue. The people you cite would be older, wiser and more accomplished (minus a dissertation) even without having attended the program. Tighter controls on admissions may not be the whole answer but I believe that it needs to be a part of any comprehensive answer. We have all heard of these programs being described as "cash cows." The universities want the biggest possible enrollments in these programs and so people are likely to be pushed through in order to keep those tuition checks flowing into the university coffers. My guess is that while DL doctoral dissertations may generally meet general PhD standards, I'd bet that a large percentage of them just make it over the bar. I know that there are substandard or barely standard B&M dissertations but I'd bet the percentage is far less. BTW, I have no data on this. It's simply my biased opinion. I also believe that part of this problem stems from the "newness" of these DL programs. I'll bet it gets better in time.
Jack

 

This is a compelling argument. But I would offer that DL schools skew positively in terms of their applicants. Also, many (like Union and Fielding) offer learner-based education--the program pursued is individualized and unaffected by other learners' competency. Hey, I cringed at some of Union's learner's, wondering if they would actually graduate. (Perhaps they cringed and wondered about me!)

DL schools are not designed, typically, in a manner that would allow one learner to detract from another. This is another reason to support open admissions (admitting all who qualify). I am not my brother's keeper.

 

Rich - JoAnn has made some good points here about the impact on classes from having marginal students in the room. In my experience, instructors tend to adapt their teaching to the students they are given. Allowing marginal students in the room leads to lower standards. I realize that in your Union experience this may not have been a problem given the individualized approach - but at other programs (such as NSU) that are class focused, this is an issue.

Here is another point - do DL institutions have the guts to tell a student "your work isn't good enough to remain in this program?". The nature of tuition driven programs (especially in the for-profits) is that they want to graduate students who will in turn tell their buddies "come on to xxx - if I can make it you can make it!". Telling people "no" is inconsistent with their business model.

Adjuncts are another point - too many adjuncts I know have learned to play the game. Don't flunk anyone or you'll have to answer for it. It is just easier to give easy grades than fight. There are some full-time faculty with the same flaw. The fact that I do flunk students and give grades less than "A" has lead to my reputation being that of a "4.0 killer". It sure would be easier to give everyone an A or A-. I'd have a lot less complaints from students and administrators.

In my experience with DL doctoral programs I've seen relatively few students dismissed due to poor academic progress. Occasionally at NSU, rumors floated about a student or two that was cut for earning two C's. But as best I understand it, attrition at US DL schools is almost totally self inflicted (e.g. people get tired and quit).

My conclusion is another quotable quote:

"The quality of graduates leaving a program is directly proportional to the incoming quality of admitted students. "

Two or four or even six years of education in a graduate program can't undo a weak foundation. Why do you think that places like Harvard and Stanford turn out so many successful graduates? As one prof of mine put it, "Given the quality of their incoming students, Harvard could teach voo doo for two years and still have successful grads".

As for the use of GRE/GMAT scores - I think they can help a lot in keeping weak students out. The GRE and GMAT folks have evidence that shows statistical significance between test scores and grades/persistence. Why do you think that virtually all traditional B&M schools use these tests? Are they missing something here? US DL schools could learn from this.

Regards - Andy